A Place to Stand

Comments from Scotland on politics, technology & all related matters (ie everything)/"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."Henry Louis Mencken....WARNING - THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS HAVE DECIDED THAT THIS BLOG IS LIKELY TO BE MISTAKEN FOR AN OFFICIAL PARTY SITE (no really, unanimous decision) I PROMISE IT ISN'T SO ENTER FREELY & OF YOUR OWN WILL

Saturday, October 20, 2012

Lord Monckton Censored from The Air On Salmond's Orders

This is from Lord Monckton (page 12) in the latest UKIP newsletter.
------------------------------

EVERY SO OFTEN, A TV RESEARCHER telephones and asks whether I will go on the air to confront the First Minister of Scotland with arguments less limpwristed than those of Not The Conservative Party. I always agree. I always warn the programme-makers that as soon as Salmond hears I am to be his opponent he will threaten to pull out. When they tell him, he always threatens to do just that.

Then I am always disinvited.

When he and I last appeared face to face on the idiots’ lantern, I confronted him with two simple but remarkable questions about “independence” for Scotland that left him uncharacteristically, splutteringly speechless.

1- Subsidies from England to Scotland amount to several thousand pounds a year for every household north of Carter Bar, so the first Great Question is this: If Scotland breaks with England, who will replace all those tens of billions? (The normal answer id the oil but Monckton explains that under international law it is at least likely that much of the oil is English & certain that most of the rest is Orkney & Shetland's- se map under).

2 - Given that Europe makes 83% of our laws and Westminster only 5% (the Numptorium in Edinburgh makes up the rest), in what sense does Salmond’s proposal to break with London and yet stay in the EU constitute independence? (I think this one is unarguable, in which case it is unarguable that Salmond, in tandem with Cameron, is absolutely opposed to us having a vote on independence)

The whole thing is worth reading but the reason I highlighted the first paragraph is that it shows what a corrupt farce British "news" broadcasting is. In a society in which broadcast political dissent is so circumscribed that Ministers get to say that they will only "debate" withn those who won't seriously disagree with them then, by definition there is no debate and dissidents are being censored.

Were the media not under totalitarian control the programme makers would have maintained the invitation and said on air that Salmond had refused to appear. If feeling gentle towards the SNP they would have asked a minor SNP minister to take his place.

Under no circumstances can a Minister decide who is to be censored from the air in a free country.

This fits exactly with the refusal of every single MSP, alleged to believe in catastrophic warming, to engage in the forthcoming open debate on the subject. The fact that not 1 of the 10s of thousands people paid by the state to "raise awareness" of the need for more totalitarianism to fight catastrophic warming feels able to discuss it in an open forum proves how far we are on the road to totalitarianism.
This shows the assumed boundary. The boundary in the North Sea depends on whether it is set by following the line straight out from the border or whether it should go to the nearest land mass at all times - the latter giving the bend in the boundary line. Both have precedents under international law. I do not think it would be practical for Alec to march on Berwick if a majority in Westminster voted for the interpretation that gave them more.

Friday, October 19, 2012

2 From Redwood's - Corruption In Britain's Infrastructure Projects & Getting The Best Bank Of England Head

This is from a couple of threads on John Redwood's blog.

The first was in reply to an article he wrote about the need to rebuild our national infrastructure. Much of this I have said before but the serendipitous opportunity to compare with Chinese corruption, which seems much less damaging, the support, & the opportunity to put it together in a short form is worthwhile.

The second, about who should be the new head of the Bank of England is valuable not for what I said but for the informed replies it got.
----------------------------------------Who Pays For Infrastructure

The elephant in the room is that infrastructure projects in Britain cost at least 8 times what they should [the new Forth Bridge at £2.3 bn when the previous one cost £19.5m = £320m in today’s money; Crossrail’s 110 km of tunnels at £34bn when the Norwegians are cutting tunnels at £4m per km; the Dome costing £46 million to actually build but £675 million when the paperwork was done; new nuclear plants at £5bn when the Westinghouse AP1000 is on sale internationally at £800m].

Nobody is willing to give any explanation for this. The closest I have got, through an FoI is that “government projects have increased 4% more than the RPI” for over 50 years (which does indeed compound to 8 fold growth) & that the only explanation for this the civil service have is that “oil prices went up 10 years ago”.

Massive fraud would be one explanation. Massive bureaucratic parasitism too. Clearly the oil price rise, applying for only a few years and also applying to the RPI cannot be a remotely truthful answer.

We are told that we are going to need £500 infrastructure spending over the next 8 years. If the government ended this parasitism and allowed costs to fall to what they should be & are in much of the rest of the world that would be no more than £63bn.

I don’t think there would be any need for government guarantees in that case. The free market would provide all the new infrastructure needed or even wanted.

Technically the resume means they could headhunt somebody from Singapore’s central bank. Looking at that country’s success in finance as in other things, they should but I assume they won’t.

GJ WyattThe magazine Global Finance rated the six best central bankers in 2012, (based on inflation control, economic growth goals, currency stability and interest rate management) as:Glenn Stevens, AustraliaMark Carney, CanadaStanley Fischer, IsraelZeti Akhtar Aziz, MalaysiaAmando Tetangco Jr., PhilippinesFai-Nan Perng, TaiwanThey were all given ‘A’ ratings. No European was given better than ‘B’. Mervyn King received a ‘B-’.Stevens and Carney have been considered according to press reports. But why would they resign and go to the BoE? Their predecessors or deputies however could be credible candidates. Indeed Ian Macfarlane of Australia who did a brilliant job for 10 years (7 ‘A’ grades!) would be ideal. Moreover, no historical baggage in Whitehall or Threadneedle Street.

outsider

Glenn Stevens’ term of office ends in September 2013, just three months after Sir Mervyn’s. and he is about the right age, so he might be persuaded.

Neil Craig

Fine suggestions. Too often our elite choose only to compare ourselves with other EU countries. But who can argue that an Australian isn’t compatible with our system? Such a person fits John’s requirement of being able to work with politicians but, unlike Mervyn King is clearly in a position to stand up to political demands.

It would undoubtedly also enhance the £s credibility in international markets.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Radovan Karadzic - Stuff That Could Only Be Censored If Every Single UK/US MSM Outlet Is Run By Scum Matching The Guards At Auschwitz.

"Good morning, I am a psychiatrist, a literary man. Instead of being accused I should be rewarded for the good things I did," Karadzic said.

"I stopped our army many time when to were close to victory, looking for peace," Karadzic added. "I accepted four out of five peace proposals. In addition, I personally supervised humanitarian aid."

"Everybody who knows me knows I am not an autocrat, I am not aggressive, I am not intolerant," he told the judges. "On the contrary, I am a mild man, a tolerant man with great capacity to understand others."....

Karadzic advocated he was against the division of Bosnia-Herzegovina and that he was "pushed into a corner" by other parties. "All the time we defended ourselves", he said. "We had controlled over 60 percent of Bosnia. I knew it would be crazy to get more."

"I trusted the international community and often attacked our officers," Karadzic said regarding alleged war crimes by the Bosnian Serb Army.

"I tended to believe the rumors, the lies and the propaganda, although I knew their families were killed. I tended to accuse them, mostly not correct."

------------------------------------

Radovan Karadzic's opening speech for the defence in his "trial".

Despite the coverage of the BBC and our own media generally it seems difficult to dispute this.

It is a matter of public record that the Bosnian Serbs did indeed accept all these cease fires - all offered when they were winning and all subsequently broken by the WW2 Nazi Izetbegovic leading the Moslem side.

Perhaps Karadzic can be blamed for accepting these cease fires and promises from the NATO side - thereby prolonging the war. However being trusting is not a war crime.

That the war was started by the Moslem Nazis is also a matter of record. Under the Bosnian constitution at the time the war started under the rotating Presidency arrangement the legal president at the time of the entity Karadzic is accused of making war on was Radovan Karadzic. Izetbegovic was the one using force to hold power.

When the sniper killings got to bad the French peacekeepers told Izetbegovic if his snipers didn't stop killing their own people to help western propagandists they would return fire on those shooting from his party headquarters building. It immediately stopped.

The only undisputed Srebrenica massacre is of the 3870 Serb civilians in surrounding villages, carried out by Moslem Nazi commander Nasir Oric, with the deliberate and active assistance of NATO "peacekeepers". Several of the different variants of the "official" massacre story have been disproven and there is no evidence to support the current 8,000 dead tale - fewer than 2,000 bodies have been found which is less than those acknowledged to have been killed in combat.

Certainly by comparison with almost every UK politician involved, Karadzic is deserving of approbation.

When Seselj was about to win the Serbian election he, despite having not even been a member of Milosevic's government, was "indicted" by the NATO funded "court". 10 years later he is still imprisoned despite his first "trial" having collapsed due to the fact there was absolutely no evidence against him.

Of course such things can happen without public outcry only if our media, politicians and judiciary are wholly completely and totally corrupt - willing to tell any lie and censor any fact in the cause of totalitarianism, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, genocide and indeed worse. So far that has clearly been the case.

When Britain and the other NATO countries are free these "trials" will be seen to be as pivotal in discrediting the modern Nazis as Stalin's show trials are in discrediting him. In much of the rest of the world this is already the case.
----------------------------------

Slightly amended this has also gone out to 60 of the most prominent papers in the UK and US with this undernote

"Nominally this could statistically only fail to be published by at least one mainstream paper in the NATO countires if either (A) it was easily proven both factually untrue and illiterate by the standards of all these papers or (B) every last one of you were (except the Morning Star & Asia Times) wholly corrupt and willing to publish any lie and censor any fact so that you could personally have a small role in atrocities worthy of Hitler.

Don't worry - don't really expect you to publish it or any edited version. Such traces of honesty or decency would be out of character.

I just wanted to give Britain and America's journalists the opportunity to prove whether you have more decency than the guards at Auschwitz. Be comforted that my expectation was never that any of you would.
----------------------------

I'll let you know if I am wrong. For a journalist, more honest and far less racist than all of those in the British and US MSM put together try Julia Gorin.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

UKIP's Agenda - The Soundest Of Any Party Ever?

"The reason he has been haemorrhaging supporters to UKIP is that UKIP says stuff like this all the time: on Europe, on the renewable energy scam, on immigration, on the economy. I doubt there's been a political party in history which has had quite so universally sound and sensible a manifesto as UKIP does. On policies alone they deserve to be running the country by now and the only reason they're not is because they're too young and too vulnerable to the charge of being a bit weird, a bit eccentric, a bit golf club. But that image will fade, especially after next year's Euro elections when UKIP wipes the floor and becomes our largest party in the EU. The official Conservative party line on this is that this isn't a problem. (As witness the nauseating snobbery and hauteur of the respondents on this issue at Conservative Home)"

Highlighting added. That is a very high target to aim at but Delingpole, right on almost everything as he is, never knowingly understates. The ruling party of Singapore may perhaps have matched us in sense on occasion. Of course it is far easier to point out sensible reforms when the parties in power have been so universally incompetent.

If asked to improve on UKIP's manifesto I would perhaps be somewhat louder for nuclear power, for lower corporation tax rates and for allowing housebuilding, eager to make a specific growth target of at least the world average and less keen on military spending, particularly on the traditional forces. But all this is at the margins and might anyway not be electorally popular, except for the growth target.

"In fact, UKIP had a successful gathering too but, led by the Guardian/BBC lobby, most of the media all but ignored that event....

posts about UKIP, including a question of whether it is Left or Right. I would have said that it is smack on that "common ground" where I think that the Conservative Party should be. I know that will cause even more of you to ask why then do I not jump ship and embark with UKIP. I can say only that to be utterly realistic at present the Conservative Party is more likely to form another government before UKIP. My task is to try to get my party to adopt the UKIP agenda"

I think that, for him, that is probably a wise course. If Labour are not to win the next election he will have to succeed and get a joint Tory/UKIP deal based on those policies. If he fails the Conservative party will have no reason to exist, having proven that it cannot, under any circumstances, actually win an election and UKIP will have to sweep up the remnants. The fact that Cameron clearly wishes Tebbit would join UKIP is good reason to think he is right not to.

On one point I think Delingpole is wrong. The primary reason UKIP is not sweeping the country is because the state broadcasters control 80% of broadcast news and as Tebbit points out, sets the agenda for even the nominally free bit.

I do not think it can be honestly denied that the BBC/C4 censor, lie and slant in coverage of British party politics (among other things) to a degree not exceeded by the late Joseph Goebbels. In a free polity where issues were openly debated UKIP's policies would ensure victory.

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Scotsman Letter - UKIP Deserves Common Courtesy

If you are to invite John Paterson to write for you to say that UKIP are “clowns”, may I suggest that common courtesy requires that you invite somebody from UKIP to say, at equal length, why we believe not being in the EU is an intelligent policy. I am sure UKIP could provide a number of people capable of doing so in an intelligent manner without descending to personal insults.

Neil Craig
----------------------------------

Professor Paterson had written a Perspective article for the Scotsman.

It may be argued that on occasion I have produced insults of some ecofascists etc. However I have always explained, then or previously, why whatever I have said is factually proven and thus not really an insult. Any criticsm has been relevent to the argument not gratuitous, as the term "clowns" clearly is unless Paterson has some evidence of UKIP members putting on the greasepaint.

When one has to depend on gratuitous insults as opposed to factual argument, as Professor Paterson does (and as climate alarmists regularly do) it strongly suggests they know intellectual argument has failed them.

Letter - Not One of Mine Unfortunately

I highight this from Malcolm Parkin in today's Courier just because it is so clear, simple and unarguably right.
--------------------------The real power lies elsewhere

Sir, - As the chilly days approach, it is interesting to note that the electricity being generated as I write is as follows:

► Coal — 19 Gigawatts

► Gas — 15.4 Gigawatts

► Nuclear — 7.10 Gigawatts

► Hydro — 0.67 Gigawatts

► Wind — 0.53 Gigawatts.
The EU will make us start to close coal-fired power stations from 2014, and the SNP won't have nuclear.

With friends like those we don't need enemies.

Malcolm Parkin.

--------------------------------

The SNP have slightly hedged on their promise that we will be "100% renewable by 2020" - claiming they only meant that we would be producing the equivalent of 100% of all our electricity from "renewables" and that we may still have a little back-up to be used when hydro and wind can't provide the lot, but when they can we will be exporting the surplus.

Though the figures given above are for the whole UK and "renewables" make up a larger proportion of Scotland's power it is obvious the SNP position is insane.

Monday, October 15, 2012

Unlike politicians, who only have to satisfy their customers once every 5 years, have very limited competition due to the barriers to entry to nre political movements and the fact that losing one customer, unlike losing 1 vote, has a real cost, busuness is actually mush more responsive to customer disapproval.

I would therefore reccomend that writing to these organisations is likely to be more effective than the totally ineffective writing to ecofascist MPs & MSPs.

I trust you do not dispute that any major limitation on CO2 production, unless it were achieved by nuclear power which you have not supported, would at best greatly increase electricity prices and thus fuel poverty and excess winter deaths as well, since there is a close correlation between electricity use and GDP, keep the country in permanent recession.

I understand that this is because you claim we are experiencing catastrophic global warming on a scale so destructive as to justify the deaths and impoverishment of your customers.

I must admit that I do not see this catastrophic warming. Indeed this summer seemed to me to be relatively cool. However, unless your company merely has a perverse delight un killing your customers you must have irrefutable evidence of this catastrophic warming.

Knowing that there is no politician, government finned alarmist or journalist who feels there is sufficient evidence to convince any reasonable group of people I would be obliged to know what this evidence you have is?

If you have none can you think of any reason why, knowing that, as ecofascist extremists, you are committed to harming and indeed killing your customers for amusement, I or any reasonable person should ever wish to purchase anything from you.

Neil Craig

Should any of these murdering ecofascist organisations reply providing the evidence I will, of course, publish it.

The sad thing is not that Gore is a complete conman, or even that he is an ignorant moron who will rell the most idiotic lies - here & here - conmen are not rare. The sad thing is that he gets the total support of the lying pensioner murdering Nazi animals including David Cameron, Alex Salmond & the entire BBC who dominare our state and indeed, as the 2nd Gore lie link proves, of the UN liars.